1:
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
5:
6: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
7:
8: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
9: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
10: %% use the longabstract style option.
11:
12: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
13:
14:
15: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
16: \newcommand{\smc}{CXOU~J010043.1$-$721134}
17:
18: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
19:
20:
21: \begin{document}
22:
23: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
24: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
25: %% you desire.
26:
27: \title{A search for the optical counterpart to the magnetar \smc.}
28:
29: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
30: %% author and affiliation information.
31: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
32: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
33: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
34: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
35:
36: \author{M. Durant}
37: \affil{Instituto de Astrof\'isica de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife
38: Spain}
39: \email{durant@iac.es}
40:
41: \and
42:
43: \author{M. H. van Kerkwijk}
44: \affil{University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada}
45:
46: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
47: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
48: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
49: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
50: %% editorial office after submission.
51:
52: \begin{abstract}
53: After our tentative detection of an optical counterpart to \smc\ from
54: archival Hubble Space Telescope (HST) imaging, we have followed up
55: with further images in four bands. Unfortunately, the source
56: originally identified is not confirmed. We provide deep photometric limits
57: in four bands and accurate photometry of field stars around the
58: location of the magnetar.
59: \end{abstract}
60:
61: \keywords{pulsars: individual (CXOU J010043.1-721134)}
62:
63: \section{Introduction}
64: Magnetars are neutron stars that derive their large X-ray luminosity
65: from the decay of a super-strong magnetic field or the order
66: $10^{15}$\,G (and even greater internally), many orders greater even
67: than normal radio pulsars and accreting X-ray sources (Woods \&
68: Thompson, 2006). They are found
69: preferentially in the Galactic plane, in accordance with their
70: presumed youth and high-mass progenitors (e.g., Figer et al., 2005). This makes
71: observations in soft X-rays and the optical difficult, due to the
72: large columns of extincting material to each of the objects (Durant \&
73: van Kerkwijk, 2006a).
74:
75: For the nearest of the magnetars, 4U 0142+61, an intriguing
76: break was seen in the broad-band optical spectrum between the B and U
77: bands (Hulleman et al., 2004). Due to the faintness and extinction to
78: this source, it has not proved possible so far to further characterize
79: the optical feature.
80:
81: A source for which the extinction will be much less of an issue is
82: \smc, a magnetar in the Small Magellanic Cloud.
83: This source was detected by {\em Chandra} as a slow-spinning X-ray source,
84: with a bright thermal or power-law spectrum (Lamb et al., 2002).
85: Although relatively faint in the first observations by Lamb et al. and
86: Majid et al., in later {\em Chandra} and {\em XMM} observations, the
87: object had brightened somewhat towards a similar luminosity to the
88: other Anomalous X-ray Pulsars ($\sim2\times10^{35}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$,
89: 0.5--10\,keV range; McGarry et al., 2005). The AXPs (the more stable
90: type of magnetar) all seem to have the same 2--10\,keV luminosity
91: ($\sim 1\times 10^{35}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$; Durant \& van Kerkwijk,
92: 2006b).
93:
94: In Durant \& van Kerkwijk (2005a, hereafter DvK05), we presented
95: evidence for the detection of an optical counterpart to \object{CXOU
96: J010043.1-721134} in archival Hubble Space Telescope imaging with the Wide
97: Field/Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2). The serendipitous detection was
98: based on a single exposure from a survey of the SMC
99: (\dataset[MAST,mission=hst&dataid=U6744102R]{Tolstoy, 1999}). Although a faint source, the detection
100: parameters and statistics of non-detections in the field pointed to it
101: likely being a true detection.
102:
103: Here we present deeper HST imaging of the field of \smc\ in four bands to
104: attempt to confirm the tentative detection presented in DvK05.
105:
106: \section{Observations}
107: Following the failure of the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS), we
108: planned an imaging campaign with the Wide Field/Planetary Camera 2
109: (WFPC2) on board the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), aiming first to
110: confirm the detection in DvK05, and second for broad-band photometry
111: to measure the spectral energy distribution throughout the optical and
112: into the ultra-violet. We used the filters F336W, F439W, F606W and
113: F814W and the wide-field chips, for reduced read-out noise across the
114: PSF area. Exposures were dithered by non-integer pixel shifts, in order
115: to sample the PSF and decrease the sensitivity to bad pixels.
116: We obtained 6 exposures in F336W (total time: 8400\,s), 6 exposures in
117: F439W (3400\,s), 2 exposures in F606W (800\,s) and 4 exposures in
118: F814W (2600\,s).
119:
120: The images were analyzed with the {\tt HSTphot} package (Dolphin,
121: 2000), which handles bad pixel rejection, sky level estimation, cosmic
122: ray identification, image alignment, PSF analysis and photometry for
123: the ensemble image set.
124:
125: To stack together images (for display and astrometry
126: only), we over-sampled each frame by a factor of two, and aligned and
127: added these, removing cosmic rays in the process. See
128: Figure~\ref{images} for co-added
129: images in each band. Clearly the source named Star X DvK05 is not
130: present at the same location.
131:
132: To register the images to the ICRS, we searched the astrometric
133: catalogs for references in the field. Both the
134: USNO B1.0 (Monet et al. 2003) and GSC II (STScI, 2006) have substantial scatter in star
135: locations compared to the images and to each other in this crowded
136: field. The UCAC catalog (Zacharias et al., 2003), generally regarded as having more
137: precise positions, has too few stars in the field for an astrometric
138: solution. We used the 2MASS (Cutri et al., 2003) catalog, primarily on the F439W
139: image (in which the 2MASS stars were not saturated). 11 2MASS stars
140: were matched on the WF3 chip, of which 9 were usable to fit for
141: rotation, scale and offset. Final residuals were $\sim0.08$\arcsec in
142: each coordinate. The systematic uncertainty of the 2MASS positions is
143: estimated to be 0.1--0.2\arcsec; if we assume the worst case, then the
144: 0.6\arcsec {\em Chandra} positional uncertainty (90\% confidence)
145: translates into a 0.72\arcsec positional uncertainty (90\% confidence)
146: on our images. Transferring the astrometric solution from the F439W
147: image to the other images incurred negligible additional uncertainty.
148:
149: Table~\ref{phottable} lists the positions and magnitudes of stars
150: around the inferred X-ray position of \smc. Comparing to the images in
151: Figure~\ref{images}, one can see that some of these sources are not
152: good detections.
153:
154: The $3\sigma$ photometry limits for the field were: 24.2 in F334W,
155: 25.6 in F439W, 26.2 in F606W and 25.9 in F814W. These magnitudes are
156: {\em flight system}: defined such that a star of zero color in the
157: Johnson-Cousins UBVRI system has zero color in any pair of WFPC2
158: filters, and the F555W magnitudes $m_{555}=V$ (Holtzman et
159: al. 1995). A color-magnitude
160: diagram of stars in the field is shown in Figure \ref{CMD} for the two
161: filters F606W and F814W, which have the highest number of
162: detections. All of the detected stars are consistent with being part
163: of the normal stellar population in the field.
164:
165: \section{Discussion}
166: Given the non-detection probability of $\sim1.5$\% estimated in DvK05,
167: it is rather surprising that the deeper
168: observations presented here failed to detect the same source. The
169: estimate was based on the number of good detections in the field which
170: would also have been considered interesting (by color), had they fallen within
171: the positional error circle. Only one new source is detected within
172: the positional error circle, Star 6, and this is red enough in
173: $m_{606}-m_{814}$ to appear as a normal star on the color-magnitude
174: diagram, Figure \ref{CMD}
175:
176: Star Y does not appear to have varied significantly
177: between the two observations in either filter where it was detected,
178: and Star Z is still consistent with a bright early-type
179: star.
180:
181: Two distinct possibilities exist for the non-detection of the
182: counterpart to \smc\ proposed in DvK05: the original detection was
183: false, or the detection was real, but the source has faded
184: considerably in the intervening time.
185: For the detected object to physically leave the positional uncertainty circle at
186: the distance of the SMC, or even by a foreground white dwarf is not
187: possible, the proper motion required would be too great.
188:
189: One obvious solution is that the detection in DvK05 was, in fact, a
190: cosmic ray or some other artifact. {\tt HSTphot} rejects detections as
191: cosmic rays if they are much sharper than typical stars, and this
192: source was, if anything, more diffuse. Some objects were, however, in
193: the same part of the color-magnitude diagram as Star X, so there is a
194: small but non-negligible chance that this was a mere fluke. In this deeper
195: set of observations, there remain a few detections of similar
196: brightness in $m_{606}$ and blueness in $m_{606}-m_{814}$ as the
197: original detection. The large scatter at the bottom of Figure
198: \ref{CMD} is not significant in this respect, as these sources
199: (including the couple near the error circle) are more poorly measured
200: than Star X appeared to be in DvK05.
201:
202: Although the detection in DvK05 is clearly in doubt following these
203: observations, it is possible that the object faded considerably in the
204: optical, and became undetectable. The only AXP that has been detected
205: multiple times in the optical, 4U 0142+61, does at times show large
206: variations in flux, and the X-ray to optical flux ratio inferred in DvK05 was
207: much larger for Star X than it had typically been for 4U
208: 0142+61. Assuming that none of the sources detected is the counterpart
209: to \smc, we derive a limit on the flux ratio $f_X/f_V>114$ (with
210: $V\approx m_{606}$, $A_V=0.3$ from Hilditch et al., 2005; and X-ray flux in the
211: 2--10\,keV range from Woods \& Thompson, 2006), which
212: compares to a typical value of 460 for 4U 0142+61. Thus, the general
213: consistency found between different AXPs (Durant \& van Kerkwijk,
214: 2005b) could still hold for this source as well.
215:
216: %From Figure \ref{CMD}, there may be some evidence that the field
217: %immediately around \smc\ has lower extinction than the
218: %surroundings. The few well-measured stars around the positional
219: %uncertainty circle are to the very left (low extinction) of the bulk
220: %of the stars in the field.
221:
222: To summarize, follow-up HST/WFPC2 observations of the field of
223: \smc\ have failed to confirm our earlier tentative detection of an
224: optical counterpart. No convincing counterpart is seen, with much
225: better limiting magnitudes than before. The absence of a detection
226: could either mean that the original detection was false, or that the
227: counterpart has faded significantly. If the latter, its X-ray to
228: optical flux ratio could now be the same as for 4U 0142+61.
229:
230: \acknowledgments
231: MD is funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science. MHvK acknowledges the
232: support of NSERC.
233:
234: {\it Facilities:} \facility{HST (WFPC2)}.
235:
236: \begin{thebibliography}{}
237: \bibitem{a}
238: Cutri, R., Skrutskie, M., Van Dyk, S., Beichman, C., Carpenter, J.,
239: Chester, T., Cambresi, L., Evans, T., el al., 2003, Vizier catalog II/246
240: \bibitem{fish}
241: Dolphin, A., 2000, PASP, 112, 1383
242: \bibitem{b} Durant, M. \& van Kerkwijk, M., 2005a, ApJ, 628, L135
243: \bibitem{gratuitous}
244: Durant, M., \& van Kekwijk, 2005b, ApJ, 627, 376
245: \bibitem{me}
246: Durant, M. \& van Kerkwijk, M., 2006a, ApJ, 650, 1070
247: \bibitem{andagain}
248: Durant, M. \& van Kerkwijk, M., 200ba, ApJ, 650, 1082
249: \bibitem{hil}
250: Hilditch, R., Howarth, I., Harries, T., 2005, MNRAS, 357,304
251: \bibitem{hst}
252: Holtzman, J., Burrows, C., Casertano, S., Hester, J., Trauger, J.,
253: Watson, A., Worthey, G., 1995, PASP, 107, 1065
254: \bibitem{H04}
255: Hulleman, F., van Kerkwijk, M., \& Kulkarni, S., 2004, A\&A, 416, 1037
256: \bibitem{gsc}
257: Guide Star Catatog 2.2, Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) \&
258: Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino, 2006, Vizier catalog I/305
259: \bibitem{c} Figer, D., Najarro, F., Geballe, T., Blum, R., Kudritzki,
260: R., 2005, ApJ, 622, L49
261: \bibitem{sheep}
262: Lamb, R, Fox, D., Macomb, D., Prince, T., 2002, ApJ, 574, L29
263: \bibitem{coords}
264: Majid, W., Lamb, R., Macomb, D., 2004, ApJ, 609, 133
265: \bibitem{mc}
266: McGarry, M., Gaensler, B., Ransom, S., Kaspi, V., Veljkovik, S., 2005, ApJ
267: 627, L137
268: \bibitem{d} Monet, D., Levine, S., Canzian, B., Ables, H., Bird, A.,
269: Dahn, C., et al., 2003, AJ, 125, 984
270: \bibitem{e} Zacharias, N., Urban, S., Zacharias, M., Wycoff, G., Hall,
271: D., Monet, D., Rafferty, T., 2004, AJ, 127, 3043
272: \bibitem{PI}
273: Tolstoy, E., 1999, IAU Symposium 192, ASP, eds Whitelock, P. and
274: Cannon, R.
275: \bibitem{wood}
276: Woods, P., \& Thompson, C., 2006, in ``Compact stellar X-ray sources'',
277: eds Lewin, W., van der Klis, M., Cambridge University Press
278: \end{thebibliography}
279:
280:
281:
282: \begin{figure}
283: \begin{center}
284: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.48\hsize]{f1a.eps}
285: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.48\hsize]{f1b.eps}\\
286: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.48\hsize]{f1c.eps}
287: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.48\hsize]{f1d.eps}
288: \caption{Images of the field of \smc\ in the F814W, F606W, F439W and
289: F334W filters (left to right, top to bottom). The
290: positional 90\% confidence circle based on the {\it Chandra} detection
291: is shown, and the stars listed in Table~\ref{phottable} are
292: labelled.}\label{images}
293: \end{center}
294: \end{figure}
295:
296: \begin{figure}
297: \begin{center}
298: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.7\hsize]{f2.eps}
299: \caption{Colour-magnitude diagram of stars in the field of \smc, for
300: the filters F606W and F814W. Circular markers represent the few
301: sources near to or in the positional error circle with measured
302: magnitudes. }\label{CMD}
303: \end{center}
304: \end{figure}
305:
306: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
307: %% each one.
308:
309: \clearpage
310:
311: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllll}
312: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
313: %\rotate
314: \tablecaption{Photometry of field stars\label{phottable}}
315: \tablewidth{0pt}
316: \tablehead{
317: \colhead{Label} & \colhead{RA} & \colhead{dec} & \colhead{$m_{334}$} &
318: \colhead{$m_{439}$} & \colhead{$m_{606}$} & \colhead{$m_{814}$} }
319: \startdata
320: 1&1:00:43.152&-72:11:34.71& 24.2$\pm$0.3& $>$25.6&26.2$\pm$0.3& $>$25.9\\
321: Y&1:00:43.209&-72:11:34.09& 24.1$\pm$0.3& 24.81$\pm$0.15& 24.35$\pm$0.08& 23.85$\pm$0.06\\
322: 3&1:00:42.995&-72:11:34.92& 19.031$\pm$0.005& 19.966$\pm$0.006& 19.986$\pm$0.007& 20.084$\pm$0.005\\
323: 4&1:00:42.926&-72:11:35.03& 21.73$\pm$0.03& 21.858$\pm$0.017& 21.653$\pm$0.011& 21.551$\pm$0.012\\
324: 5&1:00:42.773&-72:11:34.09&$>$24.2&$>$25.6&26.4$\pm$0.3&$>$25.9\\
325: 6&1:00:43.221&-72:11:33.64&$>$24.2& $>$25.6& 25.9$\pm$0.2& 25.07$\pm$0.14\\
326: 10&1:00:43.175&-72:11:35.18& $>$24.2& $>$25.6& 25.9$\pm$0.2& 25.8$\pm$0.3\\
327: Z&1:00:43.001&-72:11:32.94&\nodata&17.783$\pm$0.002&\nodata&\nodata\\
328: 12 &1:00:43.450&-72:11:34.18& $>$24.2 & $>$25.6 & 26.1$\pm$0.2& 25.9$\pm$0.3
329: \enddata
330: \tablecomments{See Figure \ref{images} for the locations of the stars in the
331: field. Uncertainties are formal 1$\sigma$ errors, limits are 95\%
332: confidence. Magnitudes are Flight-System (Dolphin, 2000), some are
333: clearly spurious (see text).}
334: \end{deluxetable}
335:
336: \end{document}
337: